What is a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate?

Useful Rulings on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

Recent Rulings on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

201-225 of 301 results

ROCKETSHIP VS. MT DIABLO

It is not a petition for a writ of administrative mandate brought pursuant to section 1094.5. This has implications for both sides. First, the governing standard of review is abuse of discretion: Rocketship must show that the District’s conduct was "arbitrary" or "capricious." (Sequoia Union High School Dist. v. Aurora Charter High School (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 185, 195.) Second, the doctrine of “exhaustion of administrative remedies” does not apply. (City of Coachella v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2017

PSC 1600676

In this combined first amended petition for writ of administrative mandate/writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff Mission Springs Water District (Mission) challenges Desert Water Agency’s (DWA) approval of resolution No. 1123 declaring DWA a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). DWA demurs on the grounds that Mission has failed to name an indispensable party. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is an indispensable party.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

JOHN DOE VS NYREE GRAY ET AL

Background and Procedural History On October 30, 2015, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandate. On December 15, 2015, Respondent filed its verified answer to the petition. On September 20, 2016, Petitioner filed his opening brief in support of the petition. The court received Respondent’s opposition, Petitioner’s reply, and the administrative record. The court also exercised its discretion to consider Respondent’s sur-reply and Petitioner’s response thereto.

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN DOE VS AINSLEY CARRY ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE Petitioner JOHN DOE’S Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is DENIED. BACKGROUND In this administrative mandamus proceeding, petitioner John Doe (“Petitioner”) appeals his suspension by the University of Southern California’s Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards (“SJACS”), as well as the decision of the school’s Student Behavior Appeals Panel (“SBAP”) to uphold that suspension.

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JANE DOE VS AINSLEY CARRY ED.D. ET AL

On petition for writ of administrative mandate, “[t]he trial court presumes that the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating the contrary.” (McAllister v. California Coastal Comm'n (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 921.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BRANDON J. ERDLE MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Monday, January 30, 2017, Line 4, PETITIONER BRANDON ERDLE Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Hearing required. =(302/AJR)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

DEAN FREEDLANDER MD VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Monday, January 30, 2017, Line 3, PETITIONER DEAN FREEDLANDER Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Petitioner Dean Freedlander's writ of mandate is denied. Dr. Freedlander is not entitled to writ relief by administrative mandate per CCP ? 1094.5 because Respondent California Department of Health Care Services was not required by law to hold an evidentiary hearing. (See Scott v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

JOHN DOE VS AINSLEY CAREY ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE Petitioner JOHN DOE’S Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is DENIED. BACKGROUND Petitioner John Doe (“Petitioner”) filed this Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate on May 12, 2015. The Petition is directed to Respondents University of Southern California (“USC”) and Ainsley Carry, Ed.D. in his official capacity as USC’s Vice Provost for Student Affairs (“Dr. Carry”) (jointly “Respondents”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ACCUZIP, INC. V. CAL. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS BD.

On February 2, 2016, AccuZIP filed this Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate seeking to set aside the Board’s November 6, 2015 decision. III. Standard of Review The standard of review is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b), which sets forth three grounds of inquiry: (1) whether the agency proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. IV.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2017

JOHN DOE VS AINSLEY CARRY ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE Petitioner JOHN DOE’S Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is DENIED. BACKGROUND In this administrative mandamus proceeding, petitioner John Doe (“Petitioner”) appeals his suspension by the University of Southern California’s Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards (“SJACS”), as well as the decision of the school’s Student Behavior Appeals Panel (“SBAP”) to uphold that suspension.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PSC 1604591

On September 23, 2016 Caron filed her Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, seeking judicial review of a $1,000 citation issued by the BOP on June 30, 2014. BOP asserts that Caron was served notice by certified mail to her business address of record and she failed to exercise her statutory right to appeal the citation and receive a formal adjudicative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2016

GEORGE JIMENEZ MANDE ET AL VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING ET AL

Respondent Board of Registered Nursing's demurrer to the first amended petition for writ of administrative mandate as to petitioner Raquel Tolentino only is sustained without leave to amend. Ms. Tolentino's writ is entirely premised on the allegation that the Board lacked jurisdiction to impose the discipline it imposed against her. Per Business & Professions Code 2761, the Board may take disciplinary action against a licensed nurse if any one grounds for discipline exists.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

JOHN DOE VS CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE

General Negligence On June 15, 2016, Doe filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, Case No. BS162759. A Notice of Related Case was filed on July 19, 2016. On July 19, 2016, this court sustained Claremont McKenna’s demurrer to the first, second, and fourth causes of action, and overruled its demurrer to the third cause of action. Accordingly, this action is proceeding only as to Doe’s Unruh Civil Rights Act claim.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2016

JENNIFER KENT, DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF HEALTH CARE SERIVES VS. DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DHCS filed an initial petition, alleging three causes of action: (1) writ of administrative mandate (CCP § 1094.5); (2) petition for writ of mandate (CCP § 1085); and (3) Declaratory Relief (CCP § 1094.5). Among other things, DHCS alleged that the District, not CCS, was the entity who refused to include the services in the IEP. That petition named the District as a “real party in interest.” The District brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2016

30-15-812467 Jennifer Kent, Director California Dept. of Health Care Serives VS. Director California Office of Administrative Hearings-CU-JR-CJC

DHCS filed an initial petition, alleging three causes of action: (1) writ of administrative mandate (CCP § 1094.5); (2) petition for writ of mandate (CCP § 1085); and (3) Declaratory Relief (CCP § 1094.5). Among other things, DHCS alleged that the District, not CCS, was the entity who refused to include the services in the IEP. That petition named the District as a “real party in interest.” The District brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2016

THOMPSON VS. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

Cause of Action One - Writ of Mandate: Statute of Limitations Respondents argue that Petitioner’s writ of mandate is a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5 and not a writ of traditional mandate under §1085. This distinction is important because writs under §1094.5 have a 90 day statute of limitations, while writs under §1085 have a three year statute of limitations. At least a portion of the writ claim is clearly a claim for a writ of administrative mandate.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2016

BRIKHO VS. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Petitioner filed a combined petition for writ of administrative mandate and points and authorities in support thereof. Petitioner's principal complaint was that the hearing officer "appears to be hired on an ad hoc basis" by the Housing Authority and was therefore biased with Petitioner being deprived of a fair hearing in violation of his due process rights.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2016

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • Judge

    Joan M. Lewis

  • County

    Sxn Diego County, Cx

NEIGHBORS FOR PRESERVATION AND PROGRESS (A CALIFOR ET AL VS. SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL

The object of the petition was to reduce the size of the project because it was allegedly out-of-character with the neighborhood (Petitioner's Verified Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP 1094.5) or Mandate (CCP 1085), 2:12-16; 3:23-4:5; 7:1-2). After the remand and re-hearing, there was no substantive change in Respondent's decision and the 5-story project moved forward.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2016

IN RE: SYLVIA ORTIZ

Petitioner Sylvia Ortiz Notice Of Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure 1094.5 (Added For Posting Of Tentative Ruling) SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016, LINE 5, Petitioner Sylvia Ortiz Notice Of Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure 1094.5 (Part 2 of 2) But she offered no substantial medical evidence on the specific issue of her capacity to perform transit operator tasks and no medical testimony at all that she was

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2016

IN RE: SYLVIA ORTIZ

Notice Of Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure 1094.5 SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016, LINE 5, PETITIONER SYLVIA ORTIZ Notice Of Motion For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure 1094.5 (Part 1 of 2) The motion will be heard at 2:00 PM in Dept. 302 by Judge Joseph M. Quinn.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2016

NEIGHBORS FOR PRESERVATION AND PROGRESS (A CALIFOR ET AL VS. SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL

The Honorable Judge Goldsmith executed a Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandate on April 29, 2015 finding the Board of Appeals had abused its discretion and remanding the matter back for a new hearing. As the prevailing party and under the authority of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ? 1021.5, the Court awarded to NPP its attorneys fees. Discovery proceeded thereafter on the narrow question of the reasonable amount of those fees.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2016

  • Judge

    Douglas Robbins

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

C.K. V. COUNTY OF YOLO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

C.K.’s petition for writ of administrative mandate is DROPPED FROM CALENDAR for failure to file a proof of service establishing personal service of the moving papers on respondents County of Yolo Health and Human Services Agency and Patti Larsen. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 415.10, 1094.5, 1096.) Additionally, petitioner failed lodge the administrative record with the Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1140.) Further, the Court declines to consider the declaration of Derraugh M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2016

PILAR BELL VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

Petitioner Pilar Bell'S Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Monday, January 4, 2016, Line 21, Petitioner Pilar Bell's Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Off calendar. Order issued on December 30, 2015. =(302/EHG)

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2016

PILAR BELL VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

Notice Of Hearing On Peition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Set for hearing on Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Line 13, PETITIONER PILAR BELL's Hearing On Peition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Petition for writ of administrative mandate is denied. In issuing the extension order, the Board complied with Government Code ? 11517(c)(2)(E)(iv). In the extension order, the Board noted that it needed more time to complete work on the decision.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2015

PILAR BELL VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

Notice Of Hearing On Peition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Set for hearing on Monday, December 14, 2015, line 1. PETITIONER PILAR BELL'S Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. The hearing is continued to December 22, 2015 to be heard by Judge Goldsmith due to the recusal of Judge Kahn, who is handling the department 302 calendar on December 14. =(302/HEK)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2015

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.